The ram fans said " consumer reports is garbage, they don't know what they are talking about" when they gave ram a below average on the ram brand. Let see if they say the same about motor trend.

So the Ford crushed the competition in actual performance, yet the Ram won?? How does that work out? The only area where the ecodiesel could have outperformed is mileage. I would love to see the scoring and methods used. Motortrend is notorious for deciding comparisons with bogus opinion related catagories.

I read the MT article and it was odd.
It really seemed like they tried to find a way to give RAM the win in every test, even if it didn't win it.
I love the idea of the RAM with the ecodiesel because 0-60 times to me are useless, problem is, the extra cost and proven sub-standard reliability of RAM would make me buy the Ford.

What do real people say? Never buy a money pit Ram!!! I drive for a living and I have only seen one Ram Eco Diesel in my travels. Big seller? Where?

Diesel always wins, and will always win out, fuel economy, pulling power doing both or unloaded either way it will always win period. You can argue cost upfront, and price per gallon, but what really matters is you will never have issues towing anything with the diesel, and you will always get much more resale in the end, especially when you get over 100K miles on these, time will tell, and this is my opinion only

It is pretty clear that this was a very subjective scoring. Motortrend thought Ram had the best truck and so it won. I don't really like this type of rating system. While in this case I agree with motortrend that right now Ram has the nicest interiors, features, and ride quality, others may disagree and no subjective rating like this is going to take the place of the customer taking his own test drive.

Its also just generally good advice to wait a year or two on newly introduced technology, especially in things as expensive as cars. If you like Ford products and want to buy now it would be a good idea to look for a steal on a 2014. Especially if you can find a 5.0. Aluminum changeover gave it an extra whopping 1mpg. With the deals you will be able to get on 2014s you will never recover the savings in fuel economy.

Also looks bad for Chevy. This is another major publication pooping all over their new truck. Chevy is going to have to drop their prices substantially or begin giving up marketshare.

I thought there were supposed to be significant design changes from one year to the other of a truck to be eligible for the MTTOTY award? What changers were made between 2014 and 2015 for Ram? No matter to me who actually wins just weird that the same truck would be eligible three years in a row.

@KeithCT: I agree, a truck is about towing and hauling. If a 2.7 turbo gasser bitch slapped the ecoDiesel, then it sounds like the towing and hauling test was not properly weighed in their overall scoring method.

I'm not a Ford or RAM fan, but hey, let's be fair.

@CreigMac: it's not motor trend truck of the year testing, read above, it is 2015 Half Ton Comparison Test.

So did all you Ford guys think it was just going to win on speed alone? Excuse me, speed alone and a man step?

How about the bounciness feeling that you get when towing with your F150? Poor staring feel, as if the front end were too light?

Part of Ford's steps to reduce weight is to also go back to a shorter leaf spring. The longer leaf spring was on the trucks I believe since 2009, up until 2014 for "a better ride".

I guess they threw out comfort in their search for lightweight? I guess they also throughout uneven comparison in the comparison, as Ford went and sent a Super Cab, not a crew cab.
FWIW, Ford's Super Cab is easily the smallest when compared to a Ram Quad Cab/GM Double cab. Maybe they didn't think we noticed the difference? LOL!

There's probably at least 100 pounds of difference between Fords Super Cab and Ford Crew Cab of the same model.

Maybe that's another step on how Ford says they reduced the weight by about 700 pounds an apples to oranges comparison.

Then there is also the gear hunting it says that the Ford had to do.

I guess the bottom line is if you're just looking for a little drag
race pick up truck, you buy a Ford with a 2.7 L, or if you don't care about how much has it sucks when loaded.

As they said, the Ram, even with the cost of diesel being higher, cost less to operate. That will weigh out more and Rams favor when diesel prices start to drop because it will not always be such a big difference in gas and diesel. A half a year ago it was only 5% more for diesel.

This is also a Ram with the 3.92 gear, I do believe the Ford had the 355 gear. Put a 3.55 deer in the ram, and add 17 inch wheels instead of the big 20 inch wheel and tire set up, and you will get better yet mileage with that Ram.

The Ford used much smaller 31.5 inch Michelin tires, and had the 3.55 gear to help with its mileage, along with its lighter weight (lol!).

Speaking of brakes, what do you know, that heavier RAM which was 1000 pounds heavier than the Ford, out braked that Ford!

I'm still waiting for the people that say that the diesel require so much extra maintenance? DEF, yeah, but I believe the eco-diesel takes 5W 20 oil that you could buy for pretty darn cheap and it's only about 7 quarts of it. No spark plugs to change, or to regap, in case the Ford has intercool er issues like the 3.5 has.

Ford, you need to go back to the drawing board. Good effort, but effort doesn't win.

Wow, talk to text screwed that up. That line was supposed to say "you don't care about how much gas it sucks when loaded"

I like Motor Trend, they seem to do good testing by professional drivers and they seem to have some good truck people on staff unlike Car and Driver.

Good job ford. Most fuel efficient gas engine that is more capable then v8's of the competition and even a diesel. Sounds like aluminum is the ticket. 1000lbs lighter then some of the competition. Did you see the 45-65 mph passing times with a trailer. The little 2.7 did it around 9 seconds and the diesel ram took 21 seconds. That is dangerous if you pull out and pass and it takes that long to build 20 mph. I thought diesels were torque monsters and nothing could tow like them. Has ram lied on 420 ft lbs of torque cause the 375 of the gas motor does it so much better and extremely quicker.

Just wait for the 5.0 Cummins Titan

@gom: sub standard reliability of Ram? Maybe you are unfamiliar with all FORDS ISSUES?! Like 3.5 issues? Useless Ford My Touch, Escapes ( a recall leader) Fords tendency to burn ( Found On Road burned Down. Since you want to go there talk about reliability why don't you look at the last few years of Consumer Reports and they could tell you overall how Ford has taken a hit with the reliability?

They didn't tried to find a reason for the Ram to win, the Ram out rode it, out shifted it, out steered it, out mile aged it, out featured it....

Just because Ford sends a lightweight (couldn't find a crewcab?) and out accelerates the Ram doesn't mean everything.

Wait a second, I know. Ford has had the most gutless 1500/F-150 for years now, you finally have a fast one? Will it last?

I looked up the Ford 3.5 non turbo numbers just for grins (I know, 2.7 used here) wow, that will be a gutless fleet special!

Lighter by maybe 300-400 pounds then a 3.6 Ram, but less power, and 2 less gears? Bah ha ha! Rams 3.6 show the 8 speed made a big difference in beating GMs 4.3, but I see Ford expects to tow up to 7500 or 7600? I remember Ford initially tried to upstage Rams 3.6 when it's ratings came out, they pencil whipped it to "tow more" but Edmunds compared the two and the Ford overheated the transmission @ 100% GCWR.

Thanks for the laugh, Ford! At least they have circled and highlighted the problem!

Even though the Silverado was the loser if you look at all the numbers you aren't going to go wrong with any of them. If you don't want to keep your truck after your payments who cares which one you pick. I always thought if you want an engine in a truck that's going to last get a diesel.

Scott, just give up posting. You clearly have no comprehension of what torque is and what power is. Finish high school physics then come back.

Winner of Truck of the year is going to the GMC Canyon 4x4 Crew Cab, you heard it here first.

I don't think the Ram 1500 can win the Motortrend Truck of the Year award this year. From my understanding, the only trucks able to compete are either brand new designs or having some type of significant update/refresh. The Ram 1500 doesn't meet any of those criteria. It did last year b/c of the Ecodiesel addition to the lineup. Personally, I think the reason they put this recent test out was to say "the Ram would have one again this year" but they can't let it compete agains the F-150 in this years TOTY competitions b/c of their internal rules.

My 6.7 cummins pulls a trailer faster then a 6.4 hemi which has less torque then the cummins. Why doesn't the ram 1/2 ton with more gears and a diesel with more power pull a trailer better then a smaller v6 gas motor. 21 seconds to build 20 mph from 45-65 is unacceptable and dangerous.

I'll laugh if MotorTrend gives the truck of the year award to the Canyon or Colorado I will laugh, Ford has a big ego and they will cry like a girl.

Funny how the (lightweight Supercab) Ford couldn't make it's city rating on mileage, by over 1 mpg they missed, yet Ram was using a CREWCAB (the Ford would weigh darn near 100 more pounds if it were in a crew cab configuration) WITH Ramboxes (they add about 100 pounds) yet the Ram returned it's combined rating in it's heavier configuration. 19 is the city rating, 23 beat it by a lot.

I been saying that, put a load on it, watch the mileage suffer. The Ford folks don't care about Fords so called economy, they just want to go (years of driving 4.6s and 351s I guess!)

But they will tell their wives they bought the Eco-bust for economy, lol!

Looks like we can say Ford lied about mileage, (wouldn't be the first time) right Scott?

^ Meant to say in comparing loaded mileage.

@ Scott

This is a copy and past of what I posted in response in the last article you asked the same question in.

"That is because just how some are complaining that the Ecoboost does not live up to the fuel mileage hype, neither does the Ecodiesel in power and towing. The reason why all starts with what VM Motori designed the 3.0L Ecodiesel for. It was designed to go into a Cadillac as a fuel efficient diesel option, but was scrubbed by GM. Basically it is an engine designed for a car and put in a truck.

While this engine was designed to get good fuel mileage, it was not designed to be a tow engine like other diesels which is blatantly clear by looking at its dyno chart. Unlike most towing diesels that have a flat torque curve and keep their torque for almost the whole engine speed range, the Ecodiesel is peaky and quickly looses it's torque. So much so that it already looses over 15% of its torque by the time it reaches peak horsepower at 3,600 rpm. People automatically think this diesel is like it's bigger brethren the 6.7L Cummins, but they are now way the same when it comes to power delivery. The hype of this being the end all be all "half ton" towing engine is far from reality, but it does deliver on the promise of better fuel economy."

This is why the Ecodiesel is dangerously slow when hooked up to a trailer and us severely underpowered compared to the 2.7L Ecoboost that has a much flatter and longer torque curve. It is not like other towing diesels and people need to understand that at the time of purchase. If people think this thing will tow like the HD diesels then they are sadly mistaken.

Wow! An old Ram 1500 diesel beating out the new F150 2.7 ecoboost. Definitely over hyped and exaggerated marketing like usual for Ford.

It's a sign that the new F150 is not any better than the previous generation overall. But I'm still waiting to test drive one to decide for myself.

'Also looks bad for Chevy. This is another major publication pooping all over their new truck. Chevy is going to have to drop their prices substantially or begin giving up marketshare.'

- They're already giving up marketshare. Have been for several years now. I don't even get why Chevrolet plays in the game anymore. GM's Sierra is a far nicer truck inside and outside. More comparable to Ford and Dodge. Like I said in the other thread, once the C7 fascination has worn off, Chevy's done. They simply don't have anything to offer that's as good and as nice as their competitors. Let alone better.

21 seconds is what it takes to go from 45-65 while pulling a trailer. That is terrible and a road hazard. Wonder if they had a CEL on like most eco diesels get before they go in for the first oil change. There has to be some reason why the ecodiesel tows and hauls cargo worse then an 80's era pickup. These performance figures of the ecodiesel are unexceptable in 2015. Especially with 8 gears to select from. Maybe they need to add more gears to the ecodiesel to make it better. Giving the ecodiesel an aluminum body would make it at least a little more competitive with the ford.

From the test, it sounds like there is a great aftermarket opportunity for reprogramming the Silverado powertrain. That's a bad showing for Chevy's new truck. I was disappointed by two things especially on the new F-150: the reported "vague steering" and the fact that, performance aside, the tow capacity was only 5,000 pounds.

They gave points to the RAM for ease of trailer backing, which at first I thought was a stretch. But after reflection, it really is a little nerve wracking to back a heavy trailer when you have to use a lot of throttle to get it to move. I laughed when they said they broke the tie because "Ford's unknown maintenance and aluminum repair costs gave us pause." Yes, as opposed to RAM's known reliability record and tendency to rust through in five years.

One last thing that drives me crazy about these Southern California testers -- we don't buy 4WD pickups because we want to explore Baja. We buy them because we had 16" of snow on Veteran's Day and we like to be able to get out of the driveway. Just once I'd like to see a test that measured how well the 4WD systems compare in deep snow and on ice.

Here are the empirical results:

................................Chevy.......Ford.........Ram
PAYLOAD CAPACITY 1,593 lb 1,565 lb 960 lb
TOWing CAPACITY 9,400 lb 5,000 lb 8,650 lb
TEST DATA

ACCELERATION TO MPH, UNLADEN; TOWING 7,000-LB TRAILER
........ Chevy............Ford.............Ram
0-30 2.3; 5.7 sec ....2.4; 5.0 sec...2.6; 5.2 sec
0-40 3.5; 8.9..........3.5; 7.5..........4.3; 9.0
0-50 5.2; 13.6.........4.9; 11.5.......6.3; 14.5
0-60 6.9; 19.5.........6.5; 16.2.......8.8; 23.9
0-70 9.4; ---...........8.6; 22.2........11.8; -
0-80 12.2; -............. 11.2; -.........16.0; -
0-90 15.5; -..............14.2; -..........20.8; -
...............Chevy........................Ford..........Ram
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.6; 15.5 3.2; 9.4 5.1; 21.2
QUARTER MILE
Chevy empty 15.4 sec @ 89.8 mph;
loaded 22.0 sec @ 62.3 mph
Ford empty 15.1 sec @ 92.8 mph;
loaded 20.7 sec @ 68.0 mph
Ram empty
loaded 16.6 sec @ 81.5 mph; 22.2 sec @ 58.7 mph

DAVIS DAM "FRUSTRATION"**
Chevy...............Ford..................Ram
7.6 sec, 665 ft 6.0 sec, 524 ft 9.0 sec, 812 ft
................................. Chevy......Ford..........Ram
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 127 ft 127 ft 126 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.77 g (avg) 0.75 g (avg) 0.76 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 28.0 sec @ 0.75 g (avg) 28.5 sec @ 0.69 g (avg) 29.0 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,500 rpm 1,600 rpm 1,700 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
.........................Chevy.......Ford..........Ram
BASE PRICE $43,755 $43,305 $46,155
PRICE AS TESTED$54,550 $46,720 $53,690

The specs say the F150 in the test was rated to tow 5,000 lbs but it towed 7,000 lbs.

Odd - a truck pulling 2, 000 lbs OVER its rating was first in almost all of the empirical data but finished 2nd against trucks rated to pull more.

BTW - the Ford and Ram both are rated to SAE standards.

Motor Trend screwed up last year by announcing the Ram 1500 as the 2014 MT Truck of the year by virtue of Ram's intention to offer a diesel engine sometime in 2014. It was my understanding that the title would go to an as-equipped vehicle only if it was available for sale at the time of the award and was all new or significatnly refreshed. That's like MT deciding the 2020 "XYZ" truck is the 2016 winner because "XYZ" is going to put laser guided steering in the vehicle in 2020. The 2014 Ram, except for the diesel,was a carryover from 2013 where it understandably earned the title-it was all new-then. The all new 2014 GM trucks should have earned the title for 2014 if we are to believe MT's criteria.

Very much an oranges to tangerines to pomelo comparison.

Use 18" wheels all around to have a real ride quality test. [hell get Bilsteins if you find the truck you want to keep]
Use the SuperCrew F150-that would add an extra 100 pounds.
Use standard axle ratio in the Dodge Ram, 3.55 not towing 3.92. Use standard size tires, 265/70 17 not oversized 275/60 20.

The diesel is perfectly optimized for the 45-65 sprint: 45-55mph in 4th gear, quick upshift to 5th for 55-65. The problem is a lack of actual power. 240hp is what you get from an entry level rear drive 4 cylinder in a 'full size' pickup.

It seems like Motortrend has become more decreasingly more untrustworthy and sloppy with their comparisons. When can we actually get an unbiased and fact based comparison between the main truck competitors.

1.No discussion about comparable gear ratios between transmissions.

2.No discussion about the large payload capability differences between the vehicles.

3.No discussion about the actual cost per mile per manufacturer specs recommended by the companies.

4.Actual Trucks that compare-trim levels, gear ratios, same size wheels and tires.

5. Actual scoring system and how they weight each category. Like previously mentioned the ford killed the diesel in all performance categories.

It is not that hard to actually have a fair unbiased test that controls as many variables as possible. Im sure any high school science class could complete a more accurate test than motortrend.

Yeah, those 80s era trucks are AWESOME! I love the sound of the unaerodynamic cabs pushing air! Plus the gas mileage that you would get with an 80s era truck when towing! Real good! Or not towing! 15-18 mpg at 60 mph rocks! I love it when I get to a hill with my three speed truck and it has to downshift to second gear and it really screams the rpm's! Comfort was great in 80s era trucks! Bench seats were everywhere, and if you were lucky, you had one source to hook up your phone charger to! We had a few club cab trucks that you had to get in to the back thru the front doors! 80s era trucks stopped so great! Remarkably fast, with no lock up of brakes! They were so tough that you could take a head on accident and walk away! Throttlebody injection for the world! I loved it when we didn't have any drive to get better miles per gallon from the competition! I will like bouncy oh leafspring trucks that ride like a old horse and carriage! Sometimes you were lucky, you could get a "half ton" that can actually total 8000 pounds! Wow!The way these old ladies trucks would go around corners, you would think Mario Andretti would love them! In the little mirrors that they put on those old ladies trucks, oh you got a love it!! Maybe if I'm in an old 80s GM sidesaddle truck, when I get hit in the side, it'll explode on me!

If we were lucky, we would get a cassette player in the 80s, wow! The steering response of the 80s trucks are just so great! I love how my 89 Chevy C-1500 has a little glove box that can hold only a pair of gloves and that's it! or maybe I can up to put in my owners manual instead of the gloves, you think? The FM reception was so great with those 80s trucks! AM is just great if you want to listen to a football game right? The great thing about 80s trucks is, we were just getting sway bars installed on most of them! Wow, high-tech!

I love how 80s era trucks lasted so long! You could wear one out 150,000 miles! And if you're 80s era truck is unstable with a bigger trailer, you just need the next biggest 80s era truck!

Lots of 80s era trucks came stock with air conditioning, there probably in the percentage that's less than 25%!

I just love how I load my 80s era truck with about 8000 or 9000 pounds of trailer and get about 7 miles to the gallon

Old 80s trucks, LOL, not old ladies! Just a little sarcasm!

Actually I still have a few 80s era trucks, they're alright for around town, but if I had to make a long trip in one or drive one daily, no thanks!

It's worth a comparison to see what you've really gained over the years, A lot more comfort, A lot more safer, a lot more gas mileage from all the above, A lot more convenient, better handling, ride, and braking.

But just for the sake of comparison, maybe they should get a 1985 Chevy with a 350, same year model for Ford and Dodge with a 351 and a 360 respectively, 3 speed automatic's, because the automatics weren't around until the late 80s in trucks, and give us a real review on how they did, and how they stand up to nowadays.

@Lou

"fanboys like Z-veira aka breast look at what ever gives their tribe a win. They don't care about anything else. "

Exactly! I can guarantee that if that MT article pitted a GM 5.3L versus a Ram 5.7L, and it was the GM that got the better fuel mileage while the Ram had better performance then their posts would be touting only the performance side of the article. That is just what Hemi V8 did in a PUTC article where clearly stated he would rather have power over mpg where the topic was about the Hemi being the lesser mpg choice, and them flip flopped in just a few articles later when the topic was the Ecodiesel. And they wonder why we hold what they say with no value or validity.

Man, talk to text, I said because four-speed automatic's for not around until the late 80s.

I thought PUTC might put their spin on it instead of just saying what they said.

Ram didn't really win......
1) The big flaw is with current fuel prices, Ford is cheaper even at 19 mpg combined MT Real fuel economy to 23 from Ram.

2) At 960 lb payload and 1000 pounds in the bed, it was overloaded in testing

3) Interiors is subjective. They liked a cloth interior better than leather.

4) Ram slowest.

5) Ram worst handling

6. Slowest up Davis Dam

7 Slowest in the quarter mile

8. Significantly less payload volume

9. Less passenger volume

10. Cost $3000-$7000 more

11. 27.5% more expensive fuel (current national average)

12. Ram completely broke down, again. This is the second time the EcoDiesel failed in a MT test.

13. Significantly smaller gas tank

The Ford got second because they fear "repair cost" and reliability of the aluminum body. Yet Ram was the only truck that needed repairs during testing.

Ever wonder if shock value works for them? Dare to be different? Take the minority stance? What gives them the most press? The decision doesn't foot with the numbers.

The Ecodiesel has now proved to be one of the most worst, under performing diesel ever put in a truck. The Ford 2.7 took its lunch.

Ford is doing it right. Ram, back to the drawing board, your Ecodiesel has been proven to fail. It spends more on fuel, and gets spanked by a gasser and is gutless.

Hey Lou in BC, wouldn't the Ford super crew with 373 gears and 33 inch tires (ok, you know Ford doesn't put 33 inch tires on their non-Raptor F-150s, okay 32 inch tires is all you get with your Ford, never mind, The Ram runs 33 inch tires., 31.65" 17" wheels, 265/70R17s would improve mileage and performance) you do that stuff in the Ram will pick up mileage.

However, the Ford falls very short of it's so called mileage, isn't that the whole reason people are going to these little V-6s?

How hard is it for Ford to just, hey look, we turned up the boost? Look at our power! Sucks we can't get so good mileage when 1200 or 1400 pounds are in the truck (depending on if these tests had two adults sitting in the trucks) But by gosh, we got that EPA number!

Could be wrong here, Lou, but I do believe a hemi 5.7 8 speed will certainly out pull this 2.7 Ford, and except for city mileage or running around completely empty the hemi will get the mileage just as well. After all, the Chevy almost got the same mileage as the Ford V-6, it's just that the Chevy was sluggish. Lol. We've known this!

If I'm a Ford exec, and I'm coughing up big money for the TOTY award, I'm going to be plenty ticked if I pick up MT and see this article's strangely idiotic conclusions. But if I'm GM and I just bought the TOTY award for my Canyonado, I'm going to be pretty ticked about the beating the Silverado took on this test. Mark Williams used to work for MT and knows how it works.

@Lou

Also, going by Ford chart, that 2.7L Ecoboost is rated to tow 7,600 lbs so I think the 5,000 lbs they posted was a typo. If they would have used a 3.73 rear axle then the tow rating would have been 8,200 lbs which would still be under the 8,600 lbs that 3.92 rear axle ratio ed Ram is rated for. Funny, it has the least tow rating, but out performed the Ecodiesel by quite a big margin. This makes me wonder how this test would have been if that Ford would have been a 3.73 rear axle versus the 3.92 in that Ram. The performance gap would have probably been worse.

5000 lb is the rating if you don't have the tow package. MT wasn't comparing apples to oranges.

What may be the best truck for some may not be the best truck for others. Each brand has been known to produce "money pits" and each brand has been known to produce quality trucks; they seem to cycle around and almost never keep that quality label for long. And when you try to look at longevity, well, one brand claims to have the oldest trucks still on the road while another claims to have the most older trucks still on the road. It's all marketing spin.

So. What's the best truck out there? The one that best meets an individual's needs for capability, performance and reliability. For me, that means a completely different truck than for someone like Lou_BC, Denver Mike or even Big Al from Oz. Since my needs aren't for massive load-carrying or towing capacity, I can get by very nicely with something notably smaller and economical than a farmer/rancher who needs to carry/pull a 10'-12' tall load of hay for his herd of horses/cattle. As long as I can carry a few sheets of plywood flat in the bed (tailgate up or down, on top of the wheel wells or between) while getting SUV-level fuel mileage, I'll probably be happy. Load limit? Maybe 1,000 pounds plus driver/passenger if that much.

The Ram had the best
Braking
Interior
Transmission
Suspension/ ride
Fuel economy.

And you could call it a tie on towing as it had the best ease of towing (as given by the reversing test and hitching) but the Ford had better performance numbers while towing.

The Ford had the best performance
0- 60
Passing
Engine

Although it's fuel economy suffers under boost.

It's not unclear why the EcoDiesel won.

"We can only assume Motor Trend had some of these trucks in-house for its annual Truck of the Year contest and decided to do a quick head-to-head comparison while it had the opportunity. Of course, in announcing the 2015 Ram the winner of this half-ton comparison, it stands to reason the 2015 Ford F-150 will not win Motor Trend's 2015 Truck of the Year contest, likely to be announced in a few weeks.:

It could be push back, maybe Ford didn't come to the table with COTY advertising budget like they thought they would or figured this would make Ford pay more $$$ to win the award over the Colorado.

Scruti, Ram did not have the best economy. Economy means saving. Ram save the most fuel but the fuel costs 27% more and therefore it doesn't have the best economy in the real world.

@ Hemi V8

You just proved Lou's point.

Also, this........

"Sure the 2.7 is zippy. In the long run the 3.0 diesel will pass you as you have to stop for fuel."

...... is false. The 2.7L Ecoboost like the one in the article is available with a 36 gallon fuel tank. The biggest tank you could get with the Ram is a 26 gallon. This means the Ram has to fill up sooner going by the combined mpg, the highway mpg, and the loaded mpg in that article. So no, you will not be passing anyone.

The ford would have got better mileage then it did if it did everything as slow as the ram did cause the ford would have only needed 1/4 throttle to keep up with the ecodiesel.

@scott

Ha ha ha! It's funny because it's true.

90% of people who tow trailers will never tow a grade like the Davis Dam, and if they do its only once in a blue moon unless you live in that part of the country.

@: TRX-4 Tom - I am not impressed with the mpg of the 2.7 Ecoboost BUT if one factors in performance it is on par with ANY comparable engine with similar HP and torque numbers. It killed the Chevy in every metric.

When Ram announced that they would put the VM Motori diesel into a 1/2 ton I was pleasantly surprised and it made me reconsider Ram. What killed it for me was the payload. I need a bare minimum of 1500 lbs. The best Ecodiesel Crewcab 6.4 box 4x4 Ram is 1,150 lbs. Add to that Ram's legendary reliability and Ram once again falls off my radar.

The Ram rides better because it is set up like a car. A BOF car with a balcony.

I am looking froward to the Colorado diesel. A shootout between it and the Ram will be interesting. The Colorado has a 1500 lb rating.